"The departure of Christine Milne came quickly but it wasn't really a surprise as she has been a snarling, negative leader of a party that likes to promote itself as one committed to love and cuddles for people and creatures."

Notable Adam Bandt apparently has also been demoted, and with characters like part-time rapper Scott Ludlam, Sea Patrol fan Sarah Hanson-Young and former Soviet-aligned communist Lee Rhiannon along with the usual motley crew, it will be interesting to see whether the Greens will attempt to put together actual policies rather than their usual wish lists of populist slogans.

Dear Shadow minister,

I think the best example of snarling and negative came from that absolute shocker of a minister one Kevin Andrews.

“Does it really matter who will lead the freedom hating Greens? Their anti-family & community destroying policies remain.”

Come on. Here is someone who moving aside after 25 years in politics to rightly spend more time with her family and we get this from an actual Minister? Pathetic!

Top shelf tosser and a generally nasty piece of work.

It would have been quite a shock to the number of Greens who were not informed and found out from the news reports.

It was expected in a way, because Milne has been under threat within the Greens, being blamed for the lacklustre popularity of the Greens since Brown departed the scene.

There is obvious factional tension.

It is remarkable that Bandt got the bullet. The elevation of Larissa Waters was most strange, not being announced earlier. Waters was apparently an afterthought of factional dealing, resulting in two deputies.

The way ahead will be interesting. There are those with ambition, Sarah Hyphenated and Rhiannon for instance, who would be very unhappy the career they thought they had in their pocket has been stymied and for a long time too.

SteeleRedux,

"Top shelf tosser and a generally nasty piece of work."

Couldn't agree more.

In fact a prime example of the odious, puerile and ungracious attitude of this govt in general.

Does this mean The Greens are a real Part now
With you guys arguing over them ?

Shadow is looking for a bite, anything to divert attention from the rancid economic managers we have in Canberra at the moment in the shape of 'Team Abbott'.
Our resident expert on everything OTB, truly amazing what this bloke can see in his minds eye from that dingy basement in Tempe Sydney, which is party HQ for the ultra right Australia First mob. It must be said this pair never let their ignorance stand in the way of them presenting the "facts".

Christine Milne, who will be 62 in a weeks time, chose the time and place to appropriately announce her resignation. Party members received an email from Christine yesterday at 10.52am.

"Dear Paul,

I’ve just stepped out of a meeting with my Party Room colleagues to send you this note." etc etc

Best wishes and thanks to you all,

Christine.

Very few party leaders get to choose their time and place to depart. Take the Liberal racists Little Johnny Howard, who was unceremoniously kicked out of parliament by the people, no beg pardon's there. No politician in their right mind wants to suffer the political humiliation of a Howard.

Dr Richard Di Natale will offer a different style of leadership to that of Christine Milne, and that is to be expected. Already Richard has offered the government an olive branch on good legislation. The Greens are also considering supporting the Coalition in their quest for a 4% rule being applied to Senate voting, something Labor and micro party members are most unlikely to support.

SR

I agree that Milne "Top shelf tosser and a generally nasty piece of work."

I note that my original head line of "Christine Milne resigned after suffering sudden stabbing back pains" was shortened. I for one don't believe for an instant that CM's decision to resign was voluntary. I believe that her constant negativity in opposing everything incl indexing the fuel excise the ETS etc and her complete inability to deliver results got the rest of the loonies up in arms. I'm sure that if Crusty turned around that you would see the boot print of Dick Dinner Tally on her ample bottom.

I take it from Dinner Tally's announcement that he wants to move the greens from being just a fringe whinge party to being more central and taking on the Labor party. I will enjoy watching them devour each other.

Business as usual, fungal Green.

My word the venom certainly comes out when there is any chance of the antigreens putting the boot in.
I am sure that Kevin Andrews will be long forgotten when people look back at the disgusting antics by the major two parties and Christine Milne will be long remembered for being a steadying influence at this time.
She will be remembered for trying to bring a semblance of sanity to the AGW problem when it is seen that it was too little too late.
Keep on buying your mega mansions, driving your fuel guzzlers, filling your time with electronic gimmicks and as the extreme weather events destroy more of your ridiculous "infrastructure" and you start to wonder where your next meal is coming from, you too will remember her.
Thanks Christine for doing your best for us undeserving swill that we are.

Apparently the Greens evoke hate and general nastiness from some of the posters to olo. Labor and the Coalition don't like to be questioned. They agree on racing to the bottom to demonise asylum seekers. They also agree to serve the interests of corporate Australia. They agree that they wish no challenges to their dominance.

I feel good about being a Green and don't return the hate. I feel we are working for a more just Australia and hope the major parties will have some regard for the environment.

Senator Milne has served 25 years in Australian
politics, being elected to the Tasmanian Parliament
in 1989 and becoming the first woman to lead a
parliamentary party in Tasmania in 1993. She was elected
to the Senate in 2004, elected Deputy Leader of the
Australian Greens 2008 and Leader in April 2012.

The Greens have gone from strength to strength with
solid election results and a growing engaged membership.

What I particularly liked about the Senator is that she
was a coherent, straight-talking political leader. She
was able to marshall facts and present them along with
the likely consequences. The Greens is a party that has
appeared sane and focused - unlike others in the
current political mess that exists today. She promised a
more cabinet-style, collaborative approach to leadership
and her colleagues responded. Unlike some other political
leaders that we could name.

She's turning 62 this year - and is about to become a
grandmother. She deserves to be able to spend more time
with her family. She's earned that right - having
served this country well. Her replacement is a good choice
and will appeal to many people on the mainland.

Well Done Greens!

Shadow Minister presents an accurate view from the far right. He is effectively saying: "I do not understand their policies - but I thoroughly enjoy trashing people". It is akin to the well published manifestos from far right think tanks like the Marshall Institute, Heartland and our local Galileo Movement and IPA. Servicing "self" is the prime objective. Serving community is anathema.

Yes, SM...as scintillating as " Dinner Tally" was (ho hum) - I think this is a tad wittier.

Christine Milne has resigned the Greens leadership. Oh, the humanity!

First Dog on the Moon

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/06/christine-milne-has-resigned-the-greens-leadership-oh-the-humanity?CMP=share_btn_tw

(The far right not being renowned for wit - unless you include material from their trusty primary school compendium of "stuff we spruiked in grade 5".

Tony,

I seriously doubt anyone understands the Greens' policies, least of all the Greens.

Supposedly support reducing carbon emissions yet voted twice against an ETS, forced Juliar to install the world's biggest carbon tax just after guaranteeing that she wouldn't, thus guaranteeing its failure, and finally voting against indexing the fuel excise. Next they favour rail over road transport, yet voted to block the construction of a major rail hub.

I could go on, but any rational person would be confused by the sheer inconsistency of the greens.

As for the wit of first dog on the moon, I think it stopped at year 5.

I always thought Ms Christine MILNE was a more moderate within the 'Greens' ? Compared to Ms HANSON-YOUNG who I believe is badly informed by the substance and quality of much of her commentary on illegal immigration ? Still, I'm not well informed on all the political machinations. Whenever I've heard Ms MILNE speak, she seems quite level headed, directing much of her criticism in equal measure on Labour and the LNP. I can only hope her replacement is as moderate as MS MILNE ?

Foxy,

"The Greens is a party that has
appeared sane and focused...."

Leave the wit to others, it's not your forte!

A dead fish rots from the head down!

'
(The far right not being renowned for wit - unless you include material from their trusty primary school compendium of "stuff we spruiked in grade 5".'

Much hurt Poirot that the grade 5 stuff is far more rational than the regressives with their honoury phds.

Dear Is Mise,

Not sure you can teach wit.
Some people have it and some simply don't.

Now if only wit could solve world hunger!

Hi o sung wu,

I think you will find Richard Di Natale, more a small 'e' Green than Christine Milne, but still very resolute on social justice issues. I never saw Milne as anything more than a stop gap leader following the departure of Bob Brown. At the time I favored Adam Bandt for the job, but with hindsight I believe Milne was the right choice, politically very experienced and well respected within the party.
Being the same age as myself, thinking retirement more than career, and given Senate terms are 6 years, Christine has made the right decision. I hate to think any political leader would do like the Rev Fred from the NSW CDP and at the age of 80 seek another 8 year term, he's back and now holding the balance of power in the Upper House, heaven forbid!
Di Natale, has already indicated the need to not only articulate policy, and ensure that policy is voter friendly, but still at the same time maintaining party core principles. Something the major parties have had great difficulty with for a long time, and something that lead to the total demise of the third party Democrats. Feel good, pragmatic, consensus politics is great in the short term, and terrific when times are good and everything is running well, but when the chips are down, the electorate wants leadership and hard decisions from politicians, and if you can't provide that leadership and direction, people can rightly judge you as shallow and insincere, and vote accordingly.
True electoral success is not a one term three year, four year thing, but something a political party has to work for, long term over many years two steps forward, one step back. The Greens in Australia have gone through more than 20 years of informative growth from birth to adolescences, it is make or break time now, time to offer a maturity to the electorate and show that The Greens are a viable realistic alternative to the old established parties, and hopefully Richard Di Natale is one person who can help achieve that end.

It is always interesting how the ABC is always soft where the Greens are concerned.

In her interview of new Greens leader Richard Di Natale, Leigh Sales strangely squandered the opportunity to make the plotters who knifed Greens leader Christine Milne accountable for their actions, and to examine the workings of the factions.

The late double-headed deputy decision should also be scrutinised.

What is the explanation for the ABC always treating the Greens with kid gloves? Is it as simple as an informal editorial policy that favours 'progressive' social policies?

Beach, and another one of his many left wing conspiracy theories. Purched low down in the Australia First Party basement, this white is right, ultra right, right winger, sees all, hears all and knows all. The antithesis of the tree wise monkeys all rolled into one.
Beach, could you please post another one of those hilarious YouTube clips by that crazy Miss Marple character you were so fond of, when you were beating your Fabian drum with all those left wing conspiracies, she might have one on this topic.

If there is no smoke, start a fire.

Christine Milne - the leader of the Australian Greens
stepped down from power. She war replaced by unanimous
agreement within the Greens Party room by
Victorian Senator Richard Di Natale.

There is no good cause to doubt her stated reason -
simply that it was time. Milne clearly believes that
generational change is in order and the party is in good
shape.

The Greens vote continies to hover around a solid base of 11%.
The party has a record number of federal senators and has
advanced in state parliaments in both NSW and Victoria.

The Greens continue to build their base in the inner cities
of Melbourne and Sydney and they are also winning state
seats in places like Norther NSW.

As for Leigh Sales? She has won the Walkley Award for
best interviews for her work on 7.30 quizzing Tony Abbott,
Scott Morrison and Christine Milne, many times.

The prestigious awards held at Parliament House in Canberra
recognise excellence in Australian journalism.

"... the Australia First Party basement, this white is right, ultra right, right winger, sees all, hears all and knows all. The antithesis of the tree wise monkeys all rolled into one.

Is 'tree wise monkeys' what we are calling the Greens these days Paul?

James Massola and the SMH doing what Leigh Sales and the ABC oddly failed to do: to lift the rug and inform the public on the factions at work in the Greens,

<Greens leadership change: What really happened behind the scenes
May 7, 2015

Former Greens leader Christine Milne had been considering her future for six months before deciding to quit, and held discussions about her exit with Greens Party founder Bob Brown.

Fairfax Media understands new leader Richard Di Natale, former deputy Adam Bandt, and immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young led the push for a leadership change in the party.

Mr Bandt and Senator Milne had had a strained relationship for some time, while Senator Hanson-Young had challenged Senator Milne for the deputy leader's role as far back as 2010.

Some Greens, angry at how just one-hour's notice was given for the leadership vote, believe that if Mr Bandt had faced Senator Di Natale in a ballot, the result could have been as close as 6-5 or 7-4 in the 11-member partyroom.

While Senator Milne's decision to resign surprised many, she had discussed her future with family, friends, former staff and other members of the party in the lead-up to the announcement...

Some members insist that Senator Di Natale, and Senators Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam - who were elected co-deputy leaders, were tipped off ahead of time by Senator Milne to spoil Mr Bandt's chances.

Senator Milne and Senator Di Natale have repeatedly refused to say whether or not that is true, however the new leader did confirm that the change of leadership had been on his radar for some time...>

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greens-leadership-change-what-really-happened-behind-the-scenes-20150507-ggvwqm.html

‘morning all,

There seems to be some sort of neural problem afflicting progressives. Not a Beta Blocker but a Reality Blocker.

Is there really a sentiment that accepts that Christine Milne has resigned to smell the roses, spend more time with family, blah blah blah?

For pities sake folks, get real. She and the rest of her faction got shafted. The Greens have split because they sense change in the breeze, particularly public sentiment for the Senate. The Greens have no choice but to do a “Democrats” and clear out the more radical nay-sayers.

Milne and her mates are still living in the glory days of the Gillard era and has not been forgiven by the electorates. Unless you count one seat in the lower house as forgivness?

With a steady 11% of the vote and more competition from other minor party’s, they have tanked politically unless they can remain relevant in the Senate. They must now be part of any solutions and also differentiate themselves for both the ALP and other minor party’s. Basically they have to pick a side for the next election. They have just done that and it isn’t the ALP.

Expect much more “co-operation” in the Senate. Expect this to end any hope that Sarah-two dads may stop “pouting” and that she too may soon make a “sniffing the roses” announcement?

Congratulations to Richard Di Natale!

Richard Di Natale has emphasised that -
we've got a country that's going backwards,
we're taking a hatchet to social context to
decent income support to healthcare system, to
education, as a society we can afford to pay for those
things - we've just get to make some choices...

It's not about small government or big government -
its about decent government.

Mining subsidies, tax concessions in superannuation and
multinational tax avoidance were listed as potential
sources of revenue.

He sounds like a worthy successor to Bob and Christine!

Foxy,

As long as he doesn't start to address us as "Fellow Earthlings"!

The Greens are NOT modelling that openness they demand of others though. Also from the SMH (Judith Ireland,May6,2015),

<But when it was time for questions, the press pack was not as interested in flying Greens or morality.

When did Milne tell the party she was resigning? Did some senators get a head start on others? Why was the whole thing so speedy?

Both the former and current leaders danced and danced around the questions.

"I'm not going to go over who said what to whom, who voted in what way, what discussions were had," Di Natale offered.

When that didn't prevent five more similar inquiries, he finally observed - with just a pinch of annoyance - "look, someone may have been disappointed with the outcome. Surprise, surprise, that's politics."

In other words, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen>

However the original questions remain unanswered:

What is the explanation for the ABC always treating the Greens with kid gloves?

Is it as simple as an informal editorial policy that favours 'progressive' social policies?

I see that the venom is still being spat by the supporters of the liblabs, they really love to hate.
The Greens must really frighten the excrement out of you. Well when you have people with integrity entering Parliament it shows up the ability of the dross that is there already.

"plotters who knifed Greens leader Christine Milne"
Don't judge the Greens by the ethics (or lack of) of the liblabs.

"What is the explanation for the ABC always treating the Greens with kid gloves?"
Maybe because they are not doing any harm to anyone?

'What is the explanation for the ABC always treating the Greens with kid gloves?

because they are the mouthpiece of the godless policies.

Dear Robert LePage,

I've just come across an article that explains
the situation. The author tells us that -
"Research shows conservative and progressive brains
are physically different with right-wingers being
much more susceptible to fear."

This is backed up by research found in "Current Biology."
Which found that progressive brains were associated with
increased grey matter volume in the arterior cingulate cortex
or ACC whereas greater conservatism was associated with
increased volume of the right amygdale or RA.

A large ACC (progressives) is associated with:

1) tolerance for uncertainty
2) effortful deliberate reasoning - and -
3) acceptance of change.

Whereas a domiant RA (conservatives) is associated with -
1) quck, efficient and low effort processes - and -
2) fear as a dominant emotion.

This goes a long way to explaining Mr Abbott's strategies.
As the author points out - in the last 3 years we've had :

1) Cost of living crisis.
2) Productivity crisis.
3) Retail slump crisis.
4) Government debt crisis.
5) Emergency low interest crisis.
6) The threat of sovereign risk crisis.
7) The carbon tax catastrophe crisis.
8) The budget emergency crisis.
9) The perenially popular border protection crisis.

The author confirms that not one of which is or was an actual
crisis. But Mr Abbott never saw an amygdale he didn't want to
terrify.

Progressives, largely Labor and Greens supporters say:

"We need to stop people from drowning at sea. But these
folk are genuine refugees and we have international
obligations to think about, so we need to tread a careful path."

Meanwhile, conservatives (largely Coalition supporters)
being collectively RA dominant say:

"They're illegals. Be afraid, be very afraid!"

Conservatives are not really mean and insensitive - it's
(according to the author) just their amyglatae talking.

Same with climate change.

Progressives talk about the serious complex science and
how we face a large problem that will take decades to solve.

The RA dominant conservatives simply say:

"Global Warming is crap!"

Being RA dominant makes life easy.
For a while anyway until the reality becomes inescapable.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Robert LePage,

The author gives the government's refugee policy
as another example. He tells us that Scott Morrison
who exhibited the classic RA dominant symptoms -
he'd sung the scare song for years and took one
look at the situation and said:

"Don't think about it. Deny, deny, deny!"
Suddenly boat arrivals became secret. The perfect RA
response.

So the author's advice to us is if you enter a discussion -
on this forum, figure out if they're Labor or Greens or
a Coalition supporter and then either make them think or
scare the life out of them.
As the author says -
Piece of cake!

Foxy,

I can vouch for that. During election campaigns when I get a chance to talk with voters of all political persuasions, I can quickly identify the arch conservative voter. Many coalition supporters, the arch conservative types at least, are always preoccupied with these distorted notions of fear and loathing of the other side. As a Green I also cop the same from the rusted on conservative Labor voter. I must say I find some Liberal supporters, although very conservative on economic issues, extremely open minded on many social justice issues. Something that rarely if ever gets highlighted. and you would only see if you scrutineer on election night is that about 20% of Liberal voters preference The Greens second and above the likes of the CDP or Labor. In most cases its not just random voting there is a pattern which shows the desired intention of the voter.

Foxy,

I am continually reminded of the depths of gullibility of the left whingers. This "study" that you gleaned from "the independent Australia" is yet another of a long list of half baked studies with purported ground breaking results from years ago that have passed into obscurity other than being circulated on left whinge blogs.

In fact in trying to find the actual study I tried several cited links that went nowhere. Even then the study seems to have been on a very small sample of people from a very isolated section of the population, which appears not have been repeated.

I wonder which part of the brain that makes people conservative also makes them more science orientated wealthier and better educated?

SM,

"I wonder which part of the brain that makes people conservative also makes them more science orientated wealthier and better educated?"

That's rather amusing...as we see from the mob of privileged twats who presently run the joint. This govt is the best example I've seen that that old chestnut of the conservative upper-crust possessing brains and acumen is an overblown fable.

We'd have to go a long way to see such blatant "dumb". Every step of the way we've been confronted by ineptitude on a scale we've rarely seen before. They can't even lie intelligently - and being that spin and lies and favourable Murdoch press delivered to them their exalted position, it was a real shame that they jumped the gun in unloading their real agenda so soon into their tenure.

There's no finer example of the palpable stupidity of this govt than that prissy hysteric Pyne shrieking last night after UWA decided to reject Lomborg in favour of retaining its credibility.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/08/climate-contrarian-bjrn-lomborgs-centre-dropped-by-wa-university

Now there's a great instance of a born-to-rule rightie getting his comeuppance while simultaneously being exposed as an "educated" dud whose only contribution has been (like the rest of 'em) to institute policy based solely on his own and his masters' ideology.

Next.....

Who is afraid the climate is changing and it will lead to doom and gloom? Who has their heads in the sand about the spread of Islam? The Lefties and Greens Foxy.

Paranoia is only a psychological condition when one feels afraid when then is nothing to fear. Same goes for so called Islamophobia, however those of us who recognise the real threat of Islam have valid reason to be afraid.

The effects of climate change on the other hand has been blown out of proportion. Even going by the IPCC's figures, it would be well over a 100 years before there is serious impact on humanity, if the current trends continue. That's nothing to be in a state of fear over, in the here and now.

Given the trends in Islamic expansionism, population growth, and out of control terrorism, I worry more about the long term effects on humanity for these reasons in a 100 years than whether or not the sea level will have increased by 13 inches.

Foxy, did you know there was a study done many years ago, perhaps in the 1920's to show how brain size equates to higher intelligence and advanced evolution? The study showed the Caucasians brains were larger than the negroes proving that whites are more evolved. Shortly afterward it was discovered that Chinese have larger brains than Caucasians and the study was declared ill informed and invalid.

‘morning Foxy,

<< right-wingers being much more susceptible to fear>>

Did you just trip over your own hypocrisy and fall flat on your face? Ooops!

These are about 5% of the published fear mongering you support. Sometimes with you Foxy, it’s just a matter of enough rope! LOL.

Global warming is happening. Crisis
Warming is faster than we thought. Crisis
Ice caps are disappearing Crisis
Droughts are getting worse. Crisis
Floods are getting worse. Crisis
Polar Bears are drowning Crisis
Runaway Warming Crisis
The hottest year since XXXX spells global doom Crisis
Tipping Point Crisis
Children just aren’t going to know what snow is. Crisis
No more snow in mountains Crisis
Ski lift operators going out of business Crisis
Mass species extinction Crisis
Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters Crisis
Glaciers are melting Crisis
Even the rain that falls won’t fill our dams Crisis
None of our land will be usable Crisis
World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth Crisis
Sea ice is melting. Crisis
Sea level is rising dangerously Crisis
Hurricanes are getting worse Crisis
Global warming caused recent extreme weather Crisis
Global Warming causes bush fires Crisis
Global warming will reduce the number of redheads Crisis
The ocean is acidifying Crisis

Questioning the mental capacity of those one disagrees with, insults, name-calling and personal attacks are not adequate substitutes for reasoned arguments and facts.

BTT

"The Greens leadership election process is about as secret as the process to select the Pope" - Chris Bowen, Labor.

Not a good show from the Greens who criticise others for not being totally open and transparent in their decision-making. Hypocrisy.

No love lost between Labor and the Greens and if anyone had any lingering doubt, Shorten's lackluster send off for ideologically-blinded Christine Milne would dispel that.

Spindoc's post on page 5 was a sage assessment of the abrupt U-turn of the Greens away from the ideological Green left extremism and spoiler tactics of Milne, Rhiannon, SHY and (neutered) Bandt. To quote Spindoc,

"For pities sake folks, get real. She and the rest of her faction got shafted. The Greens have split because they sense change in the breeze, particularly public sentiment for the Senate. The Greens have no choice but to do a 'Democrats' and clear out the more radical nay-sayers."

It is going to be interesting with Shorten and his shadow cabinet still back in the glory days of Gillard (Spindoc's image). Shorten and his ministers from the failed Gillard government are even playing Gillard's gender and class wars to steal some far left voters from the Greens.

In exchange for some impossible to satisfy far leftist swingers, new Greens leader Di Natale could easily take a large bite out of the rump of Labor voters disenchanted by shoddy, dismissive treatment by the factions and who reject the gender and class wars bumpf. Once lost those voters will not be led back by empty rhetoric (which the ex-Gillard government ex-ministers are rather full of).

Shorten and those ex-Gillard, ex-ministers should be feeling the shifting sands moving under their boots.

Poirot,

Don't make me laugh, I suppose that you are going to hold up Juliar or Krudd as rational and thoughtful people after the disaster of their regimes. The Coalition has achieved more in their 18 months than those idiots did in 6 years.

As for Crusty, voting against an ETS then forcing Juliar to bring in a carbon tax in a way guaranteed to poison the debate forever.

There is no shining light on the left.

SM,

"...The Coalition has achieved more in their 18 months than those idiots did in 6 years."

Guffaw!

Apart from their secretive and diabolical treatment of asylum seekers - and their ignoramus carbon tax initiative.....what have they done except stage terror alerts and flag festoonings every time something threatens to show them up?

They are an embarrassment of monumental proportions.

Looking more and more like fruit loops with each passing day.

I mean tell me what they've achieved - apart from not passing a budget?

You mean like 4 Free trade agreements, stopping the boats, fixing the live cattle trade, getting rid of the useless carbon and mining taxes.

What did Juliar ever achieve? I can't recall anything.

Beach, that would truly be an enlightening post if it was true, but unfortunately once more you dally in the realm of fantasy. Taken to quoting another right wing forum tragic spindoc, the possessor of an extremely unreliable crystal ball. Not content to reproduce the false assertions of Mr Spin, you can always be relied upon to pepper your posts with your own totally inaccurate comments.

'morning Paul1405,

( I actually didn't know there were that many Pauls on OLO )

The Greens poll about 11% of the electorate, that means that there is "consensus by 89% of those qualified to vote" that "the science is in" and you represent a minority view.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Political orientations are connected with brain
structure. There have been quite a few studies
done on the subject. The links listed below are
merely two examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Classroom/Social_Studies/Government/Religion_and_Politics/Conservative_Brains_and_Progressive_Brains

Ryota Kanai's (University College London) article in
"Current Biology," is the one the author in my previous link
used to discuss this subject.

According to Barry Jones (and others) there is
a crisis in contemporary Australian politics as a
combination of interlocking factors:

http://theconversation.com/a-challenged-democracy-wicked-problems-and-political-failures-39040

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/broken-political-system-in-need-of-constitutional-and-structural-overhaul-20150504-1mxlt3.html

'morning Foxy,

Your obsession with brain superiority got me drawing the comparison between you and Rabbit in Winnie-the-Pooh.

“Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully.
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit's clever."
"And he has Brain."
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brain."
There was a long silence.
"I suppose," said Pooh, "that that's why he never understands anything.”
&#8213; A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh

Foxy really!

One of your links goes nowhere, and the other is to wikipedia which is just a cut and paste of one of Chris Mooney's (also a left whinge blogger) many articles on the study where he gives his interpretation of the results. Chris Mooney's articles appear to be the only surviving references to this study.

Given that the study itself has disappeared without a trace, I can only judge the study on what has been reported. Firstly 90 people is a very small sample, rendering the so called 98% certainty that CM reports impossible, and on top of that, grabbing students from the same university roughly the same age makes the study at best a single point in a larger study.

Next the test where students differentiate between Ms and Ws is not a test of cognitive ability, but a test used to determine attention span often to diagnose ADHD. Similarly there are many recognised tests for fear, none that I know of include dirty toilets, maggots and other "disgusting" photos.

In periodicals that we have been getting for more than a decade incl New Scientist, Scientific American, and Scientific American neuroscience edition, I have yet to see any referral to this study. In short I smell a huge rat.

Similarly:

A few years ago a post grad student posted a "study" purporting to show that there were only sufficient reserves of uranium to supply the world's existing reactors for 200 yrs. This rapidly circulated through the anti nuke brigade and became one of the gold standard arguments as to why nuclear power could not be a solution to global warming.

That the IAEA on reviewing the study pointed out several gaping holes in the logic and indicated that the usable reserved were probably several 1000x larger than the study indicated were ignored and the non peer reviewed article is still being used today.

spindoc,

"“Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully.
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit's clever."
"And he has Brain."
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brain."
There was a long silence.
"I suppose," said Pooh, "that that's why he never understands anything.” "

That's because the character Pooh appears to embody the philosophy of Taoism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Pooh

Actually my fave line of thought....

Dear spindoc,

Seeing as you're into nursery tales -
here's one for you:

The animal I really dig above all others is the pig.
Pigs are noble. Pigs are clever, pigs are courteous.
However, now and then, to break this rule, one meets
a pig who is a fool. What for example would you say
if strolling through the woods one day right there in
front of you you saw a pig who'd built his house of straw?

The wolf who saw it licked his lips, and said, "That pig has
had his chips."

"Little pig, little pig, let me come in!"
"No, no, by the hairs on my chinny-chin-chin!"
"Then I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in!"

The little pig behan to pray, but Wolfie blew his house away.
He shouted, "Bacon, pork, and ham! Oh, what a lucky Wolf I am!"
And though he ate the pig quite fast, he carefully kept the
tail till last. Wolf wandered on, a trifle bloated. Surprise,
surprise, for soon he noted another little house for pigs,
and this one had been built of twigs!

"Little pig, little pig, let me come in!"
"No, no, by the hairs of my chinny-chin-chin!"
"Then I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in!"

The Wolf said, "Okay, here we go!" He then began to blow
and blow. The little pig began to squeal. He cried, "Oh Wolf,
you've had one meal!" "Why can't we talk and make a deal!"
The Wolf replied, "Not on your nelly!" And soon the pig was in
his belly. "Two juicy little pigs!" Wolf cried.
"But still I am not satisfied! I know full well my Tummy's
bulging, But oh, how I adore indulging!"

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear spindoc,

So creeping quietly as a mouse, the Wolf approached
another house. A house which also had inside a little
piggy trying to hide. But this one, Piggy Number Three,
was bright and BRAINY as could be. No straw for him, no
twigs or sticks. This pig had built his house of bricks.

"You'll not get me!" the Piggy cried. "I'll blow you down!"
the Wolf replied. "You'll need," Pig said, "A lot of puff,
and I don't think you've got enough." Wolf huffed and puffed
and blew and blew. The house stayed up as good as new.
"If I can't blow it down," Wolf said, "I'll have to blow
it up instead. I'll come back in the dead of night and blow
it up with dynamite!" Pig cried, "You brute! I might have
known!" Then, picking up the telephone, he dialled as
quickly as he could the number of Red Riding Hood.

"Hello," she said. "Who's speaking? Who?" "Oh hello Piggy,
how d'you do?" Pig cried, "I need your help, Miss Hood!
Oh help me, please! D'you think you could?"
"I'll try, of course!" Miss Hood replied. "What's on your mind?"
..."A Wolf!" Pig cried. "I know you've dealt with wolves before
and now I've got one at my door!" "My darling Pig," she said,
"My sweet, that's something really up my street. I've just
begun to wash my hair, but when it's dry, I'll be right there."

A short while later, through the wood, came striding brave
Miss Riding Hood. The Wolf stood there his eyes ablaze
and yellowish, like mayonnaise. His teeth were sharp, his gums
were raw, and spit was dripping from his jaw. Once more the
maiden's eyelid flickers. She draws the pistol from her
knickers. Once more, she hits the vital spot, and kills him
with a single shot. Pig peeping through the window stood
and yelled, "Well done, Miss Riding Hood!"

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear spindoc,

Ah, Piglet, you must never trust
Young ladies from the upper crust.
For now, Miss Riding Hood, one notes,
Not only has TWO wolfskin coats,
But when she goes from place to place,
She has a PIGSKIN TRAVELLING CASE.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Really? Did you bother to even click on the
"nowhere" one that does come up? It's actually there.
As are heaps of other websites on this very subject.
Of course you have to Google the subject and if you
need help doing it - just ask

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for the link.
I enjoyed it very much.

Foxy,

The link
http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Classroom/Social_Studies/Government/Religion_and_Politics/Conservative_Brains_and_Progressive_Brains
still gives me
"Web address does not exist."
A link to the actual paper would be appreciated. I look forward to an elegant display of your skills.

Poirot,

Your comment on Bjørn Lomborg is rank hypocrisy. BL is a professor at a prestigious university and lectures at Harvard and Oxford. He is not a climate sceptic, his sole crime is deviate from the greens' dogmatic solutions to the coming "apocalypse".

There is not one person in the greens or labor that can hold a candle to his intellect.

Fox knows nothing about science. Correlation is NOT causation. It is the usual mistake of tabloid hacks. Might as well say that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise. Damn, now Fox is likely to repeat that as fact. LOL

BTT

Having done a Stott Destroyer and left her Party in a mess, Milne is now off to stuff up the world.

What new Greens leader Richard Di Natale should do as a priority is to sever the CFMEU + Greens links. That will solve several problems.

There have been a number of recent comments by judges concerning the CFMEU. Leave the CFMEU and its donations to Labor. That would be a strong move to encourage many principled members away from Labor.

SM,

"Your comment on Bjørn Lomborg is rank hypocrisy. BL is a professor at a prestigious university and lectures at Harvard and Oxford. He is not a climate sceptic, his sole crime is deviate from the greens' dogmatic solutions to the coming "apocalypse".

There is not one person in the greens or labor that can hold a candle to his intellect."

Don't for a minute imagine that you can pull the wool over my eyes regarding Lomborg's "academic" merit and reputation. He's a shill for the denier industry - even if he does claim to buy the consensus on global warming.

Here's some correspondence from "real" academics indicating how they feel about Lomborg's appointment and questioning how someone of his calibre got the gig.

http://conservationbytes.com/2015/04/22/something-rotten-from-denmark/

"Dr. Lomborg, who will be appointed as adjunct at Level D, has 28 publications with 55 citations (h-index of 3; 1 paper accounts for 84% of citations). Dr. Lomborg’s h-factor is lower than the average of even the School’s Level B (h-factor = 8) appointees. 21 of Dr. Lomborg’s publications have no citations. Although not appointed to the Faculty of Science, his research performance would not reach their Level D KPIs.
Dr. Lomborg’s track record is therefore unlikely to merit being a CI on, for example, a nationally competitive ARC Discovery grant.
The above represents the majority best practice at Universities and we recognise that appointment of some staff may fall outside this framework. Nevertheless, even individuals with unconventional backgrounds should be subject to a rigorous process for appointment.

The School would therefore like to know by what process the appointment was made and did it take the quality of Dr. Lomborg’s research track record into account?"

"In 2003, the Danish Committee of Scientific Dishonesty released a ruling that found Dr. Lomborg’s book to be scientifically dishonest through mis-representation of scientific facts. Lomborg himself was found not to be guilty due to his lack of expertise. The potential for scientific dishonesty is inconsistent with University standards."

More on the Copenhagen Consensus Center... Massachusetts

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/view-from-the-street/view-from-the-street-so-is-copenhagen-consensus-centre-just-a-us-postbox-20150505-ggtu45.html

Hi Poirot,

Sounds like this Danish Strudel is actually a fruitcake. if that's the case, Lomborg should fit right in with Abbott's thinking on climate change. Why is our Tone stopping at $4 million, given Lomborg's "outstanding" track record, shouldn't he be entitled to more like $40 million. After he proves climate change is phony Hollywood nonsense, with the left over change, he could get stuck into some real science, like finding the lost "Ark of the Covenant"!

Poirot,

You are tying yourself in knots here. Lomborg (former member of greenpeace) accepts the consensus on global warming but is a shrill for the deniers. A bit of an oxymoron there. Still no answer for why Lomborg is accepted by Harvard and Oxford? Perhaps these institutions don't meet the Greens high standards.

Secondly I have warned you about relying on left whinge blogs as references, as you frequently end up looking stupid. If you read the report from the Danish committee you get a very different story from the spin put on it in the left whinge blog.

Lomborg's best selling book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was referred by 4 separate environmental activists to the committee for inappropriate treatment of data in chapter 2 (nothing on the rest of the book). The findings of the committee were:

1 The data in the chapter was insufficient to support the conclusions he reached in the chapter (not that his conclusions were wrong), However,
2 The book was submitted for public consumption and not as a scientific paper, and in the preface Lomborg specifically claimed not to be an environmental expert. As the book was about the overreach of the claims by environmental activists.
As such the complaints were tossed out as irrelevant.

As for the H index:
"The London School of Economics found that (full) professors in the social sciences had average h-indices ranging from 2.8 (in law) to 7.6 (in economics). On average across the disciplines, a full professor in the social sciences had an h-index of 4.9, whereas a senior lecturer (associate professor) had an h-index of 2.2.[6]
Which puts Lomberg as an associate professor at 3.1 well above average for his field.

As quoted in the Economist:
"Dr Lomborg's critics protest too much. They are rattled not because, as they endlessly insist, Dr Lomborg lacks credentials as an environmental scientist and is of no account, but because his book is such a powerful and persuasive assault on the central tenets of the modern environmental movement."

SM,

The only reason the denier industry denies is because its main aim is to preserve the status quo concerning the use of fossil fuels and impeding the development of smarter technology. Lomborg takes another tack in that he says he"accepts" the science, but reckons it ain't worth doing anything about....so same outcome in that the status quo is preserved and fossil fuel interests are protected.

End result is exactly as if he was a denier. The fact that his scientific inexpertise leads him to publish misleading and dishonest material isn't the sort of thing that bestows respect from ones fellow academics.

Btw, we all know that the Abbott govt is doing its damnedest to keep its masters happy by nobbling any climate action in Australia. So it's no surprise that Pyne initially claimed UWA approached the govt on the Lomborg arrangement.

UWA quickly shot back that it was in fact approached by the govt, obviously keen to install someone like Lomborg who, discredited as he is, was looking for a home.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-23/uwa-academic-contradicts-pyne-on-policy-centre/6413984

This apparently confirmed by Pyne's recent tweet:

"Don't worry, I'm certain we'll find a new home for the Australian Consensus Centre @BjornLomborg @uwanews #auspoI"

SM,

"As quoted in the Economist:
"Dr Lomborg's critics protest too much. They are rattled not because, as they endlessly insist, Dr Lomborg lacks credentials as an environmental scientist and is of no account, but because his book is such a powerful and persuasive assault on the central tenets of the modern environmental movement."

The Economist, eh....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

"In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, which seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics. A panel of prominent economists was assembled to evaluate and rank a series of problems every four years. The project was funded largely by the Danish government, and co-sponsored by The Economist. A book summarizing the conclusions of the economists' first assessment, Global Crises, Global Solutions, edited by Lomborg, was published in October 2004 by Cambridge University Press."

Well, they would say that wouldn't they...Lol!

"....In 2012, Denmark withdrew its funding, and the Center faced imminent closure. Lomborg left the country and reconstituted the Center as a US non-profit organization, based in Massachusetts. In 2015, Lomborg described the Center's funding as "a little more than $1m a year...from private donations"

Here's another book:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/Yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300161038

The Lomborg Deception - Yale University Press

Dear Shadow Minister,

If you were to click onto the link I gave - the
site for the awesomelibrary does come up which
gives an entire series of various articles in
Time, CBS, LA Times, et cetera on the subject -
all you have to do is click onto the various
headings given. And if you still can't find the
research - I can't help you.

otb,

Go away!

Fox,

That is your reply to rebuttal of your claimed difference between 'progressive' and 'conservative' brains, to deny the science with, "Go away"?

I have a feeling that you have used the same ridiculous claim before and it was similarly rebutted by me. Yet as per usual you do it again in the full knowledge that it is absolute pap. You can't even find the source of your claims, which is why you kept fobbing off the poster who queried you on it.

Once again for the benefit of others, correlation is NOT causation. It is the usual mistake of tabloid hacks. Might as well say that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise.
[from my reply of Saturday, 9 May 2015 10:40:10 PM]

So much for that 'Awesome' site you referred others to. Tell us now, does it also state the obvious, that correlation id NOT causation? Does it cite any peer reviews of experiments that prove what you assert as proved fact?

The answer is and emphatic, 'No'. However you already knew that because you have been told before. Yet you repeat it, rudely wasting other posters' time.

P,

Every now and again you set yourself up for a good hiding when you don't check your facts.

The climate consensus committee was not a cluster of climate deniers but a group of six with Lomborg as director collating and editing the reports, and the team of 5 prominent economists, 4 of whom are Nobel Laureates (serious intellectual horsepower) who review climate related problems from an economic angle and recommend strategies and solutions.

Given that this committee's economic focus and prominence it is not surprising that The Economist wanted to get involved. For you to then state that The Economist is going to risk its reputation on an unrelated whitewash of BL's book is complete horse crap.

Finally citing a book by Howard Friel an intellectual nobody is a bit of a joke.

Foxy,

I took your advice and used the search engine on the site to find five articles all referring to the one dubious study.

In future if referring to particular article, please provide the link to the article, as what you provided was marginally better than linking to google.com.

From the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 2013 Summary for Policy Makers
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models -

"The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2}"

The differences between simulated (projected) and the observed (empirical) trend for 1998 - 2012 was no increase. Later in the Summary this period is referred to as an anomaly. The so called anomaly continues and the fact still remains, over all the global warming came to a halt in 1998.

Dear Shadow Minister,

How on earth can I have a serious discussion when
you simply dub Dr Ryota Kanai's paper as "dubious."
On what is your knowledge based compared to his?
Dr Ryota Kanai is a Cognitive Neuroscientist of the
University College London and he has had many papers
published in scientific journals - including the one
cited in "Current Biology," which you called "dubious."
"Current Biology," publishes peer-reviewed articles
reporting findings of unusual significance across all
areas of biology that aim to inform.

The following links may help you:

http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818

http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/04/11/liberal-conservative-related-to-different-brain-structures/25184.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

otb,

Rebuking you is not rebuking science.
The "Go Away!" was directed at you.
Nobody else.

I told you to "go away," simply because
as I've told you in the past (over and
over again), you see the world in very
rigid and stereotyped terms. Your concepts
are too vague and sweeping in their scope.
And you are psychologically prone to prejudiced
thinking (and personal attacks). Me,
especially. Me, especially. You put in the boot
every chance you get. If you could you'd bite
me with your bum. So, why on earth would
I want to inter-act with you or respect your
opinions. You're a mean-little-man.
And "Go Away!" still applies!

SM,

".... For you to then state that The Economist is going to risk its reputation on an unrelated whitewash of BL's book is complete horse crap."

I stated no such thing. I merely pointed out that you posting a quote praising Lomborg by The Economist was no biggie, considering they backed his venture.

(Simples - keep yer wig on)

"A Response to Lomborg's Rebuttal"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-response-to-lomborgs-re/

"Many critics of Bjorn Lomborg's book refer to Mark Twain's comment about "lies, damn lies and statistics," but I am more reminded of H. L. Mencken's remark, "For every problem, there is a neat, simple solution, and it is always wrong." The story of The Skeptical Environmentalist is one of a political scientist who wades into the vastly complex, unsettled literature of environmental science, scrutinizes a fraction of what is to be found there, and emerges confident that the simple summary he has developed is a fair and accurate representation of the science, notwithstanding the warnings of experts in the disciplines he skims that he is mistaken."

Read on....quite a comprehensive critique.

"Every now and again you set yourself up for a good hiding when you don't check your facts."

Save it, SM - that is your standard OLO response when you're not making headway in debate.

So when's this "hiding" supposed to get underway?

Fox,

Once again, correlation is not causation.

Your ad hominem attack does not change that critical flaw in your earlier post, which coincidentally was also an ad hominem attack on those who disagreed with you.

BTT

Hi Foxy,

Thanks for that link, it was very easy to find the following article, using 'political brain' as keywords. Possibly some posters were thinking of their own brains, and typing in the keyword 'marshmallow'.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/30/study-political-parties-are-all-in-your-head-literally/

A little from the article;

"Researchers from the University College London have learned that people with conservative political views generally have larger amygdalas, which are centers of the brain that determine fear and emotion. They also typically have a smaller anterior cingulate, which is associated with courage and optimism."

Is there other research which also shows people with larger amygdalas, have great difficulty using their computer keyboard. We have several forumites with extremely large amygdalas and very small anterior cingulate on this very thread. Judging by the dribble they post most of the time, I would suspect that their amygdalas are so large they have to carry it around in a box, and their anterior cingulates are non existent.

Foxy,

While I don't have a Phd in neuroscience I do have a degree in economics and quantitative methods (data analysis). And have now actually now read the report. Dr Ryota Kanai's graphs show no variation in either part of the brain for the bulk of the sample only a small deviation in the small group claiming to be conservative, being slightly bigger in the RA and smaller in the AC. Statistically, claiming this as proof would be flimsy in the least, which Dr Ryota Kanai does not claim. He does not even attempt to portray this as a definitive study, questions whether this is reflected in the general population, and suggests that this might be the basis for a bigger study.

So the problem is not what Dr RK claims, rather the inflated unsubstantiated claims found in the left whinge blogs to which you refer.

Poirot,

FYI the committee you were trying to rubbish:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

The point you were trying to make (and failed) was that BL was a crack pot with no academic credentials. And no matter how many environmental activists you line up to criticise him, much of what he says has merit, and support from the economics community from whose modeling techniques he uses.

What I object to is the shrill voices of the environmental researchers advocating censorship towards an individual that has shone the harsh light of economics on their previously closed shop. These cosseted academics in secure tenure continue to produce an stream of studies, peer reviewed by each other, many of which are unmitigated drivel. This takes the concept of academic freedom and drop kicks it into the trash.

Personally I had never even heard of BL prior to the screeching in the media about his involvement in WA, and never looked into his work until a few days ago, but certainly will from now.

SM,

"Personally I had never even heard of BL prior to the screeching in the media about his involvement in WA..."

Well there you go!

Considering you've gone way out of your way to build this joker up into someone of serious substance, I'm a tad surprised. The rest of us were well aware of Lomborg.

Does it occur to you if Mr Lomborg is so widely respected and highly regarded in his field that it's a tad surprising that he should be defunded by the Danish govt and has obviously been swanning around trying to get another gig.

Along comes the motley outfit that comprises the Abbott govt and - Voila! - a match made in heaven.

The reason UWA reassessed their decision to host this fella was that ultimately they realised that their substantial reputation would be trashed - what does that tell you?

No-one is advocating censorship of Lomborg. But to have this govt showering millions of dollars on a uni to host someone of Lomborg's reputation while simultaneously cutting funding and trashing other areas of domestic research is outrageous.

P,

Obviously you don't read the links I provide:

"The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think tank that researches the smartest solutions for the world's biggest problems by cost-benefit. Its studies are conducted by more than 100 economists from internationally renowned institutions, including seven Nobel Laureates, to advise policy-makers and philanthropists how to spend their money most effectively. The Center's advocacy for data-driven prioritization was voted into the top 20 campaigns worldwide in a think tank survey conducted by University of Pennsylvania."

Its peer reviewed reports are some of the most heavily cited in the world and as you pointed out was defunded in 2012 shortly after the Socialist/Green party came to power in Denmark.

As for BL: "his credentials are impressive: not only is he Danish, gay and invariably clad in a T-shirt and jeans, but his books on environmental issues are heavily cited, including by an array of the bien-pensant that ­ranges from Barack Obama to Ban Ki-moon."

In the words of the UWA Chancellor the project was cancelled "The scale of the strong and passionate emotional reaction was one that the university did not predict" Not for reputational reasons as you so dishonestly claimed.

However his crimes include that he has argued that the costs and benefits of devoting scarce resources to mitigating that risk should be compared to those of addressing the planet’s other pressing woes. Where that might lead hardly needs to be spelled out. After all, cost-benefit analysis forces one to identify the objective being sought, measure the sacrifice seeking it would impose and specify any uncertainty about the gains that would be achieved. Moreover, it exposes those estimates, and their assumptions, to public scrutiny, making it possible for them to be tested as new information comes to light, which is the very last thing the environmental lobby wants.

Obviously no degree in computer keyboard skills. When the discussion was about Port Botany SM had a degree in Engineering, now he has a "degree in economics and quantitative methods". also claimed to have done a bit of law at uni as well. Please don't start a thread about a hippopotamus, SM might be inclined to enlighten us with the hippo knowledge he got from his veterinary science course.

SM I found a link for you, no comment?

SM,

"Its peer reviewed reports are some of the most heavily cited in the world and as you pointed out was defunded in 2012 shortly after the Socialist/Green party came to power in Denmark."

Let's have a peek at Lomborg's personal citation history.

http://conservationbytes.com/2015/04/24/lomborg-a-detailed-citation-analysis/

"So, in the absence of a Google Scholar profile for Lomborg, I combed through his Google Scholar entries and dumped all the duplicates, I ignored all the magazine and newspaper articles (e.g., you can’t count opinion editorials in The Wall Street Journal as evidence of an academic track record), I cut out all non-articles (things Lomborg hadn’t actually written), omitted any website diatribes (e.g., blog posts and the like) and calculated his citation profile.

Based on my analysis, Lomborg’s Google Scholar h-index is 4 for his peer-reviewed articles. If I was being particularly generous and included all of Lomborg’s books, which have by far the most citations, then his h-index climbs to 9. However, none of his books is peer-reviewed, and in the case of his most infamous book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, it has been entirely discredited. As such, any reasonable academic selection committee would omit any metrics based on opinion-based books.

So, the best-case scenario is that Lomborg’s h-index is no more than 4. Given his appointment to Level D (Associate Professor) at a world-class university, the suggestion that he earned it on academic merit is not only laughable, it’s completely fraudulent. There is no way that his academic credentials had anything to do with the appointment"

However, it has everything to do with a shifty govt intent on pleasing its masters by seeking to install a controversial contrarian at a world class university.

"...Not for reputational reasons as you so dishonestly claimed."

Lol! - as if, upon the outcry, that wouldn't have been a factor.

Paul,

As you are obviously now in your dotage, I will forgive your memory lapses due to your shrivelled pre cortex, which clearly struggles with the concept of multiple degrees.

Yes as discussed before, I have a honours degree in electrical engineering with post graduate qualifications in power systems and protection. I also have a bachelor degree in economics and statistical analysis (quantitative methods), and finally to top it, an MBA.

I read your link and more than a dozen similar links to articles written about Dr Ryota Kanai's study. Having a healthy skepticism as to journalists' predilection for sensationalism, I read the actual report on the study by Dr Ryota Kanai, and not surprisingly found that Dr Ryota Kanai's conclusions differ vastly from the articles cited as gospel in this thread.

"Having a healthy skepticism as to journalists' predilection for sensationalism"

Shadow, why are you always providing links to the sensationalism of the Murdoch gutter press?

People are conservative, and resists change, if for no other reason that they fear losing what they have. be a little, or a lot, could be material and or social loss they fear, or fear the loss of the controlling power they exercise over others. or both.
Conservatives with power are forever pointing to threats that are sometimes real, and sometimes imaginary. No matter, real or imaginary, those conservative powers will exploit the fears of others to the maximum extent to keep control and keep what they have. War is the conservatives ultimate weapon of control. In the past one hundred years Australians have been told to fear the Kaiser, fear the Nazi's, fear the Communists, now fear the Terrorists. The reality is there have been genuine reasons to fear all four. but to what extent they should be, or have been feared is debatable. The conservative politician is always at the ready to exploit the fears of society.

Dear Shadow Minister,

There have been numerous studies done on the subject.
Dr Ryota Kanai's was one that was considered to be of
significant importance by his peers. And it was the
one under discussion in this thread. You, despite all
your alleged qualifications still had problems finding
it on the web, and still you managed to call
it "dubious," which makes one wander about your actual
capabilities and reasoning ability. However, be that
as it may - His study was
discussed in reputable scientific journals -
Current Biology, Science Daily, and many
others.. You asked for links - I
provided them . Now whether you choose to accept the
various findings or not - is of course up to you.
I've done my bit for you.

otb,

More of the same old tactics from you I see.

Typical RA behaviour. You fit into the conservative
brain structure described by Dr Kanai so well.

Dear Paul,

Thank You. Both you and Poirot provide the balance so
badly needed on this Forum. And it is greatly appreciated.

Dear Paul,

Thank You. Both you and Poirot provide the balance so
badly needed on this Forum. And it is greatly appreciated.

LOL

P,

It is sad that you once again source your information only from a left whinge blog.

Firstly, as I pointed out earlier, the H index for Associate professors in BL's field averages 2.2, so BL's index of 4 is well above average.

Secondly in this instance, as BL has been operating outside the purely academic realm for more than a decade I was not referring only to the citations of his peer reviewed papers in other peer review papers, rather to his citations in the wall street journal and other non academic literature. This puts him as one of the most cited contemporary academics.

Paul,

Most rational people don't share your paranoia about Newscorp.

Foxy,

You are in no position to criticise since making your assertions based on a left whinge blog you completely failed to provide a link to the actual study, which I found only after following one of your links and finding a link to the real study. Also Googling Dr Ryota Kanai throws up hundreds of similar blog articles and after digging through a dozen or so I had better things to do.

My original judgement of the study being dubious was based on the articles to which you linked which I withdrew after reading the actual study and seeing that Dr Ryota Kanai's conclusions differed vastly from the articles, which you would have known if you had read either my earlier post or the actual study.

Secondly, the other studies that you threw up do not involve using an MRI to measure the RA and AC rather psychometric like testing.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Actually Sir, you are the one who is in no position
to continue to criticise. Links were provided -
the author was provided and all you had to do is
Google the information. Paul did not have a problem
finding the article. Neither did I. As for your other
claims? The only conclusion is that
- you obviously reject or have not read
the links provided.

Had you bothered to read the provided links you would
have learned that -
there have been other studies done at various universities
- such as New York University, and UCLA (University of California
los Angeles), - where participants
were wired to electroencephalographs that recorded
activity in the anterior cingulate cortex.
An fMRI study published in
"Social Neuroscience" also found different patterns of brain
activity.

I am no longer interested in continuing to argue with you.
Things have been explained to you several times and I see
no further point in continuing to do so. You use the same
tactics that your colleague otb uses. Both of you seem to
be under the impression that if you can attribute a bad
trait to your "opponents" - others will tend to doubt
the quality of your "opponent's" arguments.
otb complains about "ad hominem" attacks - when in fact
he's the master of them. Explanations
of his behaviour are not
"ad hominem" attacks but valid logical conclusions based on
his continued actions.

Enjoy your day. I have no further interest in responding
to you.

Paul,

You quoted "Researchers from the University College London have learned that people with conservative political views generally have larger amygdalas, which are centers of the brain that determine fear and emotion. They also typically have a smaller anterior cingulate, which is associated with courage and optimism."

Must be a lot of them in Britain at the moment! LOL (in general)!

Foxy,

1 You did not provide any links to the actual study only to articles that referred to the study. And these articles differed substantially from the conclusions that Dr RK reached.

2 The study referred to in social neuroscience is only available on payment, and the abstract shows that the study is not looking at the RA or ACC.

3 The other studies to which you refer used electroencephalographs that record signals from the brain on the surface of the skull. As the ACC is deep within the brain, separating signals from ACC from the rest of the brain is impossible.

4 Paul clearly did not read the study only the articles

SM,

"Secondly in this instance, as BL has been operating outside the purely academic realm for more than a decade I was not referring only to the citations of his peer reviewed papers in other peer review papers, rather to his citations in the wall street journal and other non academic literature. This puts him as one of the most cited contemporary academics."

Yes, I'm sure he's simply wonderful (although I wouldn't consider being mentioned ad nauseam in anything Murdoch publishes as a claim to fame or integrity:)

In fact one wonders why, if he's such a spectacular success, he could only get a gig by teaming up with an international backwater denier govt like ours?

I mean where are Harvard and Oxford?

And why is it necessary to throw $4 million of taxpayer's money at a uni to entice them to collaborate with him.

You'd think they would jump at the chance since he's such an international superstar (although for some obscure reason our own well read Shadow Minister had never heard of him)

5 Correlation is not causation. All it does is throw up a myriad of questions, with the first and most obvious being differences within the sample that were not noted.

The tabloids and speculative gossip shows on The Box provide examples daily, which are only taken as entertainment one hopes.

Fox,

What you are doing is splitting the world into good and bad, B&W, according to your own limited world view and to rationalise and bolster your jaundiced view of anyone who disagrees with you.

BTT

Dear Shadow Minister,

The links that I provided actually did more than
you claim had you bothered to read them in full.
Just as one example - these two neuro studies found
as follows:

1) The Amodio study (Neurocognitive Correlates of
Liberalism and Conservatism, 2007) and the Kanai study
(Political Orientations are correlated with Brain
Structure, 2011) found similar results when comparing
the neuroanatomy of Liberals and Conservatives.

2) The Amodio study found that Liberalism correlated
with greater activity in the ACC while the Kanai study found
that Liberalism correlated with increased gray matter volume
or a larger ACC as shown in MRI scans. Additionally the
Kanai study found that Conservatism was correlated with
increased volume of the right amygdala.

I would suggest that you go back and read the
Conclusions and discussions.
It may clarify things for you.

otb,

Placing the blame on me
for your behaviour on this forum is not going
to work

Here's an interesting aside, SM.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-09/students-praise-uwa-for-ditching-bjorn-lomborg-think-tank/6457210

"The fact that we had international partners saying they wanted to pull out because of the association. So the reputational damage was probably the main complaint.

"There are a number of people who take issue with Lomborg's methodology, and with Lomborg's sort of research standing.

"The example that I use is there was a unit at UWA that used to use Lomborg's book as an example of bad science, and what not to do for students, and so a primary concern was the fact that he would be allowed to be associated with UWA when we hold our first year students who are 17, right out of high school, to a higher standard than that."

What should be made clear, is that people vote the way they do for a variety of reasons, sometimes for quite an illogical reason, such as "I always vote Labor".
I have said before I find many Labor voters to be more conservative than some Liberal voters. I'm sure even our friend Shadow Minister has deep down, somewhere in his cerebellum, a radical thought or two, like "Me thinks me will put me sugar on me Rice Krispies this morning after me put zee milk on, how radical is that."
I have never come across anyone who's views are totally conservative or totally radical, generally people are a mix of both depending on the issue, and that reflects the policies of the mainstream political parties in Australia.

Is Mise, I'm not familiar with the "issues" in Britain. The Conservatives did particularly well, Labour over there has a lot of soul searching to do. The Scottish Nationals did outstanding, winning something like 56 seats, and Whitehall will have to once more address the issue of Scottish independence

Foxy, you blow your credibility when you tell SM you have no further interest in continuing the discussion with him, yet take the bait and respond to his next comment within a few hours. If you are going to make a stand, you cannot also insist on having the last word.

I used to have arguments with my mother who, like me, could be difficult to deal with.

She would sometimes end our arguments with, "I don't want to talk to you any more, but before I stop talking to you, I have a few things to say."

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Thank You for your valid point.

I was not thinking of either my credibility or of having
the last word. It was mainly out of frustration that
Shadow Minister did not seem to
quite understand the issues being raised -
and I wanted him to read the Conclusion and
Discussions that followed on in the links
provided - especially in the Discover Magazine site.
Anyway, I'll make a note of your comments and I'll
sincerely try to do better next time.

Dear David F.,

I should have used your "hat argument,"
(put my hat on and simply walk away) - but
I guess when the right buttons are pushed -
we all react! I hope to do better next time.

Foxy,

"I'll make a note of your comments and I'll
sincerely try to do better next time."

" I hope to do better next time."

Erm....why don't you tell them to go and take a funny run?

As if they have any say on when and how often you should comment.

What a load of.....

Foxy,

I have read the studies and conclusions, and the conclusions from both the studies differ greatly from the articles to which you linked. For example both of them had samples that were so small that the results were within statistical error.

In the Amodio study with the previous study, the number of students claiming to be conservative was so small (6 this time) that any anomaly would distort the outcome. Notably the readings of two of the "conservatives" were so low that either they were nearly comatose or the readings were erroneous. If these readings were excluded as outliers, the regression would be dead flat and the average of the conservatives would be roughly the same as the liberals.

As per one reviewer:

"I had expected a better common-man explanation of the experiment and of the results. Instead, I think I read what must be an inside joke amongst one end of the political spectrum. As for the data, it seems the experiment uses a poor statistical sample showing five times as many "liberals" as it does "conservatives." Certainly the authors had access to many more subjects. The reader cannot assess how those labels were assigned nor, indeed, of they are in any way valid. Also, the data chart seems better fit with other than a liner algorithm. Theis short abstrtact does not reflect good science."

I seriously doubt that you have actually read the studies.

P,

The only person claiming that international partners wanted to pull out was student guild president Lizzy O'Shea. I have read several articles and cannot find reference to a single one. The VC who made the decision states that the withdrawal was due to the emotional reaction of some of the staff and students and deeply regrets not getting the opportunity to work with Nobel Laureate economists.

I'm sure that Nobel laureates would damage the university's reputation.

a letter from Bob Brown in today's SMH says her resignation was NOT discussed with him ..

Paul1405, (to Is Mise) "I'm not familiar with the "issues" in Britain"

Governments get thrown out, but only where there is a credible opposition.

Typically, lazy political commentators and the Parties themselves like to duck any real scrutiny of their performance and failed policies, preferring to talking about 'leadership' (as if that is the reality or even possible with factions) and the conduct of election campaigns.

However, the electorate is not comprised of the dumb punters (easily susceptible to spin) that Parties and political commentators believe they are. The public might not always be informed of the political machinations, intrigue and deals behind closed doors, but people do recognise and remember political cynicism and cant, and the public does compare and contrast political rhetoric and practical reality.

Why UK Labour and their hangers-on got turfed is directly linked with its failed socialism, leftist 'Progressivism' that was responsible for cynical political opportunism. An example is 'opposing Islamophobia' to curry support and votes from Muslims -whose fundamentalists were in the street carrying posters denouncing voting in favour of Sharia law (D'Oh). See here,

"In Miliband's Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. ... If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged." — Leo McKinstry, British commentator.

The Australian Labor Party is determined NOT to learn from those lessons.

Will the Greens nationally learn from it now that the 'Bot' has gone? Probably not either, their new leader has SHY, Rhiannon and other determined 'Watermelons' who will be white-anting him every step of the way.

Very predictable Poirot, Queen of the Last Word. Foxy wasn't offended and I don't think she "needs to do better."

No commment required, I'm off to look for a lake to jump in.

Spot on OTB.

"In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:

"We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people's records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.

"We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country."
See http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5665/uk-islamophobia-ban for more on this.
Expect the Greens and those of a like mind to try the same game here;
maybe we could call them collectively Millibrandists?